If that's what you think, then you obviously know nothing about American history. That Amendment is in place for precisely the same reason that led to the formation of this country to begin with.
Great Britain had highly trained professional soldiers too... while we were just a ragtag bunch of civilians for the most part. The only thing that makes it "outdated" is the fact that it's been watered down by a bunch of liberals over the years.
Not a great reply. Simplistic, arrogant. And lacking a knowledge in military history. But chiefly,
you speak of history and can't see the irony in a discussion of something being outdated. But let's talk history anyway, since it only serves me better.
Great Britain had a contingent of professional soldiers, but they were no better trained than the colonial miltia that they employed in fact, because the War of Indpendence started at a time when Thomas Gage was still commander in chief of the British armed forces in America. Gage was the principal advocat who believed that the foundation of the Empire lay once again in a strong Navy, and smaller armies backed up by colonial militia.
By a few years into the war, America's standing army consisted of Colonial Militia and ex-British soldiers with decades of war experience in America, chiefly fighting for Britain in the 7 years war.
The United States also boasted a more suitable navy for the country, Britain still fielded the large hulled vessels, whose hulls were larger to be able to carry more firepower, but couldn't traverse the plentiful shallow water harbours, rivers, and bays of America. The US navy on the other hand had embraced the French design, of shallow hulls and less sails which better suited the Eastern coast of America.
Of course then came international assistance, Spain and France contributed their troops, ships and supplies to America, while Britain signed treaties with a number of Germanic states.
Where am I going? Well, I'd like you to draw your own conclusion as to just how rag-tag your civilian army was, but also still make comparisons to then and now.
We know US Military forces now number 3,000,000, including reserves. Compare that to the British forces during 1775, which by all sources numbered 36,000. And we can safely assume that both have and would have had sationed forces all over the world.
As to your last comment, well, I feel your pain. But you do realise you just agreed with my original point and contradicted yourself, you admit it is outdated. It is irrelevant.
I suppose it is un-constitutional for the government to say it's illegal for civlians to own fully automatic high powered M4A1 Carbine rifles, F-22 Raptors, M1A2 Abrams tanks and keep the Nimitz class super-carriers all for themselves...
I don't want to repeat myself, but I can't see beyond the second amendment in modern times, being nothing more than a piece of tradition that allows the freedom for American people to enjoy small arms legally. Seeing how it offers little protection against any form of tyrannical US government, or military coup.
Not that I have a problem with that, guns are cool.
